Bombay High Court

FRANCIS JULIUS CREADOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA SERVED ON GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: M S KARNIK S M MODAK

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Francis Julius Creado, filed a writ petition but did not appear before the court, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra pointed out that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner lies under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court noted that the petitioner may invoke that provision, but made no observations on the merits of the petitioner's contentions. All contentions of the parties were kept open for future consideration.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non‑prosecution?
Whether the petitioner has a remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

Legislation cited

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 64

Subjects

writ petition
non‑prosecution
land acquisition
Section 64
dismissal

Judgment

                                                                4-wp 1219-24.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1219 OF 2024

Francis Julius Creado                                        … Petitioner
         Versus
The State of Maharashtra                                      ... Respondent

                         __________________________

None for the Petitioner.
Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl GP for the Respondent-State.
                       __________________________


                                         CORAM        : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                        S. M. MODAK, JJ.
                                         DATED        : 8th JANUARY, 2026.

P.C. :

1.       None appeared for the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner is

not interested in prosecuting the Petition.        Hence, dismissed for non-

prosecution.

2.       In any case, it is pointed out by the learned AGP that, appropriate

remedy for the Petitioner is provided under Section 64 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013.

3.       It is open for the Petitioner to invoke the provisions of Section 64 of

the said Act.

4.       We have not made any observation on the merits of the contentions.


 Amk                                                                    1/2
                                                          4-wp 1219-24.doc

5.     All contentions of the parties are kept open.



(S. M. MODAK, J.)                                      (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Amk                                                              2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…